4 ms·
But there's plenty of evidence. Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case. But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not ev
by aguaviva 2y ago
But there's plenty of evidence.
Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case.
But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not evidence.
Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the broader argument you are trying to make here.
- virissimo 2y agoPrior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because they provide information that could update one's belief about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many jurisdictions).